Back to template | < Template talk:Song | Archive

1,782,248pages on
this wiki
Replacement filing cabinet This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current Template talk page.
Template talk archive for Song
<< 2007 2008  

Altering templateEdit

I think we need to alter the template in order to reflect what each page represents. I think "This song appears on the album "<<Artist's album>>" by <<Artist>>" should be "This song is performed by <<Artist>> and appears on the album <<Album>>."

This allows for:

  1. The reader to know that the song was only performed this artist, a subject of debate that often arises (performer vs. original artist)
  2. The album is italicized, according to grammar rules, larger works should be italicized (albums) and smaller pieces should be offset by quotes (songs).
  3. The album can be an album not released by the artist (such as a compilation)
  4. (A small point) Adds a period to complete the sentence (see previous comment, brought up by User:PeterJohnson)

We should create new parameters "album" and "albumartist" as unnecessary parameters to be used when an album, not by the artist, is where the song appears. This is the best sample template I conjured up:

This song is performed by '''{{{2}}}'''{{#if:{{{1|}}}| and appears on the album ''[[{{{2}}}:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]''}}{{#if:{{{album|}}}| and appears on the album ''[[{{#if:{{{albumartist|}}}|{{{albumartist}}}:}}{{{album}}}|{{{album}}}]]''}}.

Also, this should not affect the parameters as they are now, so it will not result in editing all current song pages.

--WillMak050389 23:51, 29 January 2008 (EST)

I don't see anything wrong with the concept (though I think that the syntax you gave wouldn't work). I put up a working example at Template:Song/Test, but for demonstration here are a few examples:
{{Song/Test|Album (Year)|Artist}}<br/>
{{Song/Test|Album (Year)|Artist|albumartist=Kajiura Yuki}}<br/>
{{Song/Test|Anime OST (2007)|Kajiura Yuuki|soundtrack=true}}<br/>
If I remember correctly, soundtrack-like albums (that don't really have an artist) just drop that and so I added the soundtrack parameter. What it is set to doesn't matter, just that it is set. When set, it drops the artist name from the album link.
- teknomunk (talk,E,) 19:12, 30 January 2008 (EST)
Here is a test with Template:Song/Test with real artists and what some actual song templates should be if we improve the template (all of the albums and artists have been created, so we should have all blue links):
{{Song/Test|Armchair Theatre (1990)|Jeff Lynne}}
see Jeff Lynne:Every Little Thing
{{Song/Test|Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (Original Motion Picture Soundtrack) (1991)|Jeff Lynne|soundtrack=true}}
see Jeff Lynne:Wild Times
{{Song/Test|Back To The Story (1996)|The Nightriders|albumartist=The Idle Race}}
see The Nightriders:It's Only The Dog
Ok, so a few things that I see that need to be corrected. The artist needs to be linked, the album needs to link to Artist:Album (Year) for the normal case (make sure soundtracks are not affected with this fix). Other than that, it looks great. I would attempt it, but the code looks wicked complicated. --WillMak050389 21:24, 30 January 2008 (EST)
Oh, and to be complete, a link with no album:
{{Song/Test||Kajiura Yuki}}
I think that covers all the cases. And as to the code, if you copy it out of the text box and put it in something like notepad and have word wrap turned off, it is much better. It actually looks like something resembling normal a normal program. ^_^
- teknomunk (talk,E,) 21:44, 30 January 2008 (EST)
Oh, looks very good. Something else, inspired by this comment, we should have two additional parameters like "compilation" and "single," so that if either is true the template reads This song is performed by Artist and appears on the compilation album Album (Year). or This song is performed by Artist and appears on the single Album (Year). And when soundtrack=true, it could read This song is performed by Artist and appears on the soundtrack Album (Year). (Note that it identifies the album link as a single, compilation album, or soundtrack). I know this seems like a lot at once, but editing the template a number of times will probably put a strain on the server because its such a popular template.
About the complicated code: I am learning how to program with Java at school now, my class is called "Intermediate Programming," so I don't know too awful much about programming, and the templates on MediaWiki are different from Java syntax. I am hoping to learn how to program a bot for here soon, though. --WillMak050389 22:49, 30 January 2008 (EST)
I like the wording change, as it puts the artist name first. If the template could also be changed to include the soundtrack/compilation/single parameters, all the better! It would certainly solve a huge problem that we've had.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   02:14, 31 January 2008 (EST)
Well, I've already gone ahead and updated the test template to have this wording options:
{{Song/Test|Fiction (2003)|梶浦由記 (Yuki Kajiura)}}
{{Song/Test|Noir Original Soundtrack, Volume 1 (2001)|Ali Project
|albumartist=梶浦由記 (Yuki Kajiura)|type=soundtrack}}

{{Song/Test|Super Eurobeat Vol 142 (2003)|Lisa Lion|type=soundtrack}}
{{Song/Test|Gravitation (2007)|Angela|type=single}}
{{Song/Test|LOVEppears (1999)|浜崎あゆみ (Ayumi Hamasaki)|type=compilation}}
And Will, about the bot, if you don't want to write all the bot code, I could probably give you my code (the stuff for Janitor). It is a bit unorganized right now, but it works most of the time :P The only real problem is that it is written in Ruby, which is quite a ways from Java (I never liked Java, especially after working in Ruby, the two are almost exact opposites, at least in how they feel). And if you want to write you own, just remember that you have to keep track of the cookies the login page gives you, otherwise you will have an IP associated with you bot edits.
- teknomunk (talk,E,) 02:35, 31 January 2008 (EST)
Why don't make it like song|album|artist|originalalbum|originalartist which would give (if all 4 variables are used) This song was covered by artist and was released on the album album the original from originalartist is found on originalalbum --MetalSnake 13:28, 1 February 2008 (EST)
That's getting a little wordy. Rather than put that information in every Song template (since there can be more than one per page), I think it would make more sense to just use the existing Template:Cover to credit the original artist.
- DarthNemesis 15:16, 1 February 2008 (EST)
Didn't know that template, thanks! --MetalSnake 19:48, 1 February 2008 (EST)
It's looking great so far! One issue that I don't see addressed above (I might have missed it, I'm not too awake) is how we'd handle contribution artists. For instance, with the current template, since the artist name goes at the end, I just add "feat. T-Pain" (example here) or whatever on to the end of the line when the song is featuring someone else. How would we handle that with the new template?
-Sean Colombo (talk|contribs) 12:46, 2 February 2008 (EST)
Okay Sean: here is what I came up with:
{{Song|Album (1992)|Flo Rida|feat=T-Pain}}
{{Song|Album (1992)|平野綾|feat1=加藤英美里|feat2=福原香織|feat3=遠藤綾}}
This song is performed by Flo Rida featuring T-Pain and appears on the album Mail On Sunday (2008).
This song is performed by 平野綾, 加藤英美里, 福原香織, 遠藤綾 and appears on the album Album (1992).
The second one was the product of a discussion with DarthNemesis (talkcontribs) about songs with multiple artists and this is what I came up with. The only problem with it is we don't have the extension installed to do this (it uses the #foreach from here. I can remove that code if you don't want to install it. (I haven't made changes to even the test template yet, and the above is a pasted from the output of my local MediaWiki install.)
- teknomunk (talk,E,,A) 03:44, 3 February 2008 (EST)
If nobody has any additional comments, I will get this updated later tonight, sans the feat. and multiple artists stuff.
- teknomunk (talk,E,,A) 03:45, 7 February 2008 (EST)

Hi all. I am fairly new here but have been working away on pages that interest me. I haven't seen how to make the tags read "from the single" (versus album) but I will look for it.

One thing I would love to see added are line breaks in the template after that header info and before the lyrics. I have been inserting my own. It makes the page look better IMO. Check out any of my recent contributoins to see what I mean. Thanks for listening! Derekbd 17:08, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Oh and I will try to watch this page but if you want to message me please go to my talk page. Thanks!Derekbd

No full stop...Edit

Give control over to the editor as to whether to include this ;)  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 15:11, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Yeah! I'm adding things like feauring so and so and it looks dumb to have a period and then my text. Besides featured artists, can you think of what else we might want to add, Red? --Åqúàŧĩkī - É - Ŧ 09:26, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
Actually "and features ARTIST NAME" would be better. Out of habit, I think I do "featuring ARTIST NAME" as well on occasion, but then the line is worded a bit awkwardly. Some songs have 4+ featured artists, so that's always fun. I can't think of anything else to add, BTW.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   13:01, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
Maybe I'll play around with having parameters fa1, fa2, fa3, etc. to have an auto-linked Featured Artist (list) ...? --Åqúàŧĩkī - É - Ŧ 14:15, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
Yes definitely >>>Contributing artists<< By which I don't mean "featuring", I mean an actual (and equal) collaboration..Say for example like Mick Jagger and David know the one...David Bowie:Dancing In The Street The song has never been performed by David Bowie (outside that is of the bathroom). Only David Bowie and Mick Jagger. But if we do it correctly then we get an inapprpriate artist link that doesn't work like this >>David Bowie & Mick Jagger:Dancing In The Street. It would be a bit daft to create an artist page just for one song, which is the only other solution in these cases. This continues to present me with frustration...*goes off muttering something about there being no hard and fast rules for capitalising the first letter of the words in the second pipe for song names on artist pages...(another frustration)..*  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 23:31, 8 July 2008 (EDT)
Red, don't most songs on LW occur in the context of an album? In that case, they all have a primary artist and then the other is featured...? --Åqúàŧĩkī - É - Ŧ 23:37, 8 July 2008 (EDT)
True. Like Bowie includes this song on one of his compilation albums and in return his old pal Mick includes it on one of his Greatest Hits. It doesn't resolve the issue here, or collaborative singles. And this isn't of course the only song like this. The situation recurs. In fact, funnily enough...>>>>Please read both posts.
And since I'm on a roll...this is another thing that kinda frustrates me too. Look at this page The Beatstalkers:Silver Tree Top School For Boys. Now I think that that page looks perfectly fine and I would add was not originally done by me, but by Senvaikis. However it is of course wrong. Because this is the correct procedure >>David Bowie:Al Alba. Ok, one would expect people to find the additional song info after following the lyrics down to bottom of page, I agree. But I think you get my point. I, like our friend, Senvaikis, used to put such info up the top too (assuming it was brief). As I told him earlier today, it seemed to me the best place for it.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 00:02, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

How about a featuring section?Edit

Many songs feature and introduce other artists. What about adding a part to the template to make it read something like this: This song is performed by Akon, appears on the album Konvicted (2006), and features Eminem. Is that possible? I could probably insert it in but I'm not an admin.  Sean gorter  talk ESPERANZA!!! 21:55, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

What do y'all think of Template:Song/sandbox (can be seen in action at Trip Lee:Dig In)? --Åqúàŧĩkī - É - Ŧ 23:13, 8 July 2008 (EDT)
Great for featured artists yes, much better..However it doesn't resolve the issue of equal collaborations.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 23:34, 8 July 2008 (EDT)
I am not sure what to say about this one. In the way of 'featuring' stuff, I would make that a separate template, for just under the song template.
Currently, what I would do is 2 separate song templates, a la
{{Song||David Bowie|star=Green}}
{{Song||Bing Crosby|star=Green}}
I'll think about it for now. Maybe make a category for pages we would want to apply this kind of thing to when we do have it figured out?
King_Nee1114 (talk pagecontributionsdeletions) 00:28, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
Would it not be possible just to allow for, or add, another pipe? Like has been suggested for "featured" but without the actual word "featured" featuring in it (hee hee)..maybe an "and"? I would not consider the two separate song templates as it would seem to imply two separate versions....possibly two covers. ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 02:17, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
Red, I think it's important to consider how many people would screw this is up, if they knew it existed. IMHO, this should be a rare, hard to-get-at template. --Åqúàŧĩkī - É - Ŧ 08:51, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
I take your point but it wouldn't be much used. Not that I understand the impact of such things on the smooth running of the site, but a template is a template to me. And if the instructions were clear and well written it shouldn't, in theory, present a problem. No? ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 10:57, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
OK, to come to some kind of summary: We want to expand the Song template to include a featured artist parameter, and another Dual Artist (?) template for true, blue multi-artist songs. Yes? --Åqúàŧĩkī - É - Ŧ 13:40, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
Would say that this is overthinking things. We have had dual artists before, and the thing to do has always been make a page for the dual artist, (IE Billy Bragg & Wilco) and links from the separate artist's pages (usually a mention in other songs). It really is the best way to do things. Otherwise you run into naming issues and many others.
King_Nee1114 (talk pagecontributionsdeletions) 15:41, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
Billy Bragg and Wilko did 2 albums as I recall, Mermaid Avenue 1 & 2, so in such instances yes it is worth creating a separate artist page. But I'm not talking about albums. I'm talking about songs that maybe have only ever been released as singles, like for example Bing Crosby and David Bowie Little Drummer Boy, or Mick Jagger and David Bowie's Dancing In the Street. Just seems a bit unnecessary to have to create separate artist page for just one song, so I'm with the yes expand template to include featured and/or dual artist Aquatiki, maybe like when I use the type |type=single}}|type=soundtrack}}, it could just be something we change at the end when/if required. Of course, you guys could just create one for would be sure to shut me up...hee hee.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 18:44, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
My rebuttal: It would not be at all unnecessary to create that page. Granted, they have been made as singles, and granted that that page would be a short list, but "David Bowie & Bing Crosby" is the artist (or group) that has made the song. If we were to make a dual artist template set up, what would be the page name? Bing Crosby, or David Bowie? Would that mean that there is 'David Bowie:Little Drummer Boy' and 'Bing Crosby:Little Drummer Boy'?
King_Nee1114 (talk pagecontributionsdeletions) 19:06, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
Mmmm...yes I see your point. I clearly haven't thought this through very well have I? lol. For indeed, it just isn't possible.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 20:05, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
After thinking things over, that is what I came up with as well. An "artist" page for the duet, with a link to both of their individual artist pages, similar to a disambiguation page, I guess.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   23:02, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
OK! If you'all have reached a conclusion about true duets, could we come back to why this threat was started: normal songs from an album that just feature another artist?!? As I asked earlier:
What do y'all think of Template:Song/sandbox?
It can be seen in action at Trip Lee:Dig In?
--Åqúàŧĩkī - É - Ŧ 08:57, 10 July 2008 (EDT)
Hee hee Sorry, my fault entirely. As I believe I did in fact say it's great! Thanks for fulfilling this need. ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 09:05, 10 July 2008 (EDT)
So who's gonna put the code in?  Sean gorter  talk ESPERANZA!!! 23:45, 10 July 2008 (EDT)
Are we agreed then on a parameter fa=Featured Artist as on Template:Song/sandbox? --Åqúàŧĩkī - É - Ŧ 00:38, 11 July 2008 (EDT)
King_Nee1114 (talk pagecontributionsdeletions) 00:59, 11 July 2008 (EDT)
Yes.  Sean gorter  talk ESPERANZA!!! 01:13, 11 July 2008 (EDT)
But wait, what about featuring multiple artists?  Sean gorter  talk ESPERANZA!!! 01:15, 11 July 2008 (EDT)
A separate page Artist1 And Artist2 is the best way to do that. The discussion about that is somewhere above.
King_Nee1114 (talk pagecontributionsdeletions) 01:24, 11 July 2008 (EDT)
No, maybe the fa parameter shouldn't be automatically linked, then we can enter fa=Akon, Lil Wayne, and Niia.  Sean gorter  talk ESPERANZA!!! 01:28, 11 July 2008 (EDT)
Well, we would have to wait on that, then. Right now the Job Queue is already over a million.
King_Nee1114 (talk pagecontributionsdeletions) 01:36, 11 July 2008 (EDT)
Tell you what, once the job queue gets done, I'll make fa2 through fa5. How's that strike ya? --Åqúàŧĩkī - É - Ŧ 09:21, 11 July 2008 (EDT)
Great!  Sean gorter  talk ESPERANZA!!! 06:44, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

Even spacingEdit

OK, that uneven spacing with the star added was killing me. I fixed it by floating a & #32 ; (a unicode space) on any template that does not have a star. Let me know if you see any bugs.
King_Nee1114 (talk pagecontributionsdeletions) 01:08, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

That is fantastic! I have been being killed by those spaces after div's for a long time now. Thank you! --Aquatiki - T - E 05:12, 8 August 2008 (EDT)
Thanks KingNee! Those kind of things bug me too >>> Template_talk:Star (hee hee)  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 06:22, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

Multiple albums per SongEdit

After the last few additions to my favorite song U2:Sunday Bloody Sunday, I've realized we need the ability to have multiple albums per song. Since this will be a massive change (affecting 600,000 pages), I thought I hunt around for additional feedback before I change {{Song}}. My plan is to add parameters album2 to album5 and to have them display

This song is performed by U2 and appears on the albums War (1983), Under A Blood Red Sky (1983), etc.... --Åqüã†ìкí ƒΔΣ 05:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about {{Song}} or {{SongFooter}}? In the case of Song, just use multiple song templates. In the case of SongFooter, use the first album it appeared on, chronologically.
Changing {{Song}} that radically would, I think, be a bad idea. Also, think about how having album2 through album5 would only get you so far (I give America:A Horse With No Name as proof of that]].
King_Nee1114 (talk pagecontributionsdeletions) 06:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Whoa!!?!?! Don't you think that looks a little gross?! I can imagine someone coming in from Google, seeing that page and thinking we don't have the lyrics after scrolling for a minute or two and still not making it down to the words! ;-P Seriously, don't you think it would be better to clean up pages like Sunday Bloody Sunday to be just one sentence, however long? In my opinion, your crazy horse song should just list the initial album and then have a show/hide section for all the "best of" albums! Does anyone really advocate for the use of multiple {{Song}}'s per page? --Åqüã†ìкí ƒΔΣ 08:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
My example would be Matthew_Good_Band:Apparitions; the important thing to note is that Matthew Good Band and Matthew Good (solo-career) are distinct entities, they just happen to have a very similar name. The song first appeared on Matthew Good Band:Underdogs (1997); the second appearance is on Matthew Good:In A Coma: 1995-2005 (2005), however this is a "best-of" compilation which spans both Matthew Good Band and Matthew Good releases - so, on the song page, you get "This song was performed by Matthew Good and appears on In a Coma", except that that is incorrect, because the version on In a Coma was actually performed by Matthew Good Band, but you need it that way to make it link. The third instance is OK, because on Matthew Good:Live At Massey Hall (2008), the song was performed by Good, and not the band. --Aikon- 13:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm with Aquatiki on that one. I always thought it looked rather silly to have multiple lines differing only in the album name. (Although I've never come across anything nearly as bad as that America song. There's now a dent in the floor where my jaw dropped.) How about an extra "This song also appeared on..." template though, for compilations and live albums? That one could go below the lyrics, and {{Song}} could be restricted to "regular" albums. -- 6x9 (Talk) 15:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Granted, the America song does need to be fixed. One of those roll up templates would be good for extreme cases such as that, but it was given to illustrate why an infinite number of albums cannot be put into one song header. This change would require lots and lots and lots of retrofitting, and would not look as good.
And yes. I do advocate multiple song templates. Here I am, trying to convince you that our current method isn't broken or bad.
Besides, this would be something that I think the big guy Sean Colombo himself would have to pull the trigger on.
One last point: Can we get a couple of the already started projects done first? Why don't we concentrate on getting page ranking done, and move from there. With all this flurry of activity there are a lot of things getting missed and ignored.
King_Nee1114 (talk pagecontributionsdeletions) 17:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks KingNee. I'll second that!  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 21:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Getting other projects done first doesn't mean we have to forget about this one, so I added it to LTP. My, that list is growing fast! -- 6x9 (Talk) 21:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I believe I speak for KingNee when I say that is exactly what we meant. Good on yer 6x9! (See also my proposal re ArtistHeader above. ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 22:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Kiefer's Idea Edit

Since I have an idea, I'll plop it down here. The situation is that the big list is ugly. Can't be denied. It appears that an album2-album5 situation won't work for songs that are also on soundtracks, multiple artist albums, singles, or with artist name changes such as the one example by Aikon. I suggest the following: Have a slightly altered Song template so that it says something like: "This song is performed by ARTIST and appeared on the album ALBUM (DATE), among others." where the ", among others" part is added if a parameter is checked. The others portion could be an automatically created link to an "Album Appearances" section below the lyrics. There the multiple albums could be listed in a bulleted list. The bulleted list could be created on each page by a bot (perhaps marking the page temporarily to expedite the second step), then when that was done for ALL pages, the current Song templates could be removed for the updated version by bot. Kills the ugliness and retains the information. Taa-dah!    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   05:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This is an idea I can get behind! We could even has a simple template for after Credits called {{Multiple Albums}}. It would take as parameters: 1) the artist, and 2-infinite) the names of the albums. This would auto-generate the sectional-heading and list all the albums as links. --Åqüã†ìкí ƒΔΣ 05:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand the Credits idea Aqua (sorry) but I do like Kiefers idea. The big list is ugly and is silly to have wording repeated all bar the album name.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 12:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
The "credits" idea means that we would plop a template down after the ==credits== like this:
== Credits ==
* Written by Horace McGillacutty

{{Multiple Albums|Dude|Album 2 (1999)|Album 3 (2000)|Album4 (2001)}}
At least, I think that's what we're talking about. --Åqüã†ìкí ƒΔΣ 16:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I like the idea. (I'm all for keeping information above the lyrics to a bare minimum.) I suggest we make the "Dude" bit optional, just to be used when it's a different artist/name variation from the one in {{Song}}. It could then produce either "This song also appears on (album list)" or "This song also appears on (album list) by Dude". -- 6x9 (Talk) 17:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Good ideas as ever coming through...I like it (and thanks for explanation Aqua) ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 17:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Because of the difficulty with soundtracks, etc., I'm not so sure a template is the best way to go for the list. Sometimes a list just needs to be a list. Do we gain anything from using a template that I'm missing?    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   03:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Templates can be edited centrally. Lists have to be found and edited by hand. --Åqüã†ìкí ƒΔΣ 03:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
But that's for display purposes. The template on each page would have to be found and edited by hand to list all the albums anyhow. No work is saved by using a template. You're still making the list, just adding {{}} around it. Plus, then you're adding an extra level of complication.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   04:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
But things always change. If the history of this wiki and Wikipedia shows anything, it's that things change, especially in the display realm. Like all the pages that still have ==external links== at the bottom, we will want to upgrade this at some point in the future. A template is easier to do that with than raw text. --Åqüã†ìкí ƒΔΣ 06:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
We're going to do it by bot anyway, as you suggested, Kiefer. We can have one bot command that takes all the information on the page and rearranges it however we like, even in a template or templates. Once we've made this command (which I know will be complex), we can run it on all song pages, and discover lists that none of us would think to update. Thus, not much has to be done manually besides creating the template(s) and commands, and figuring out exactly how we want to display this information. Personally, I suggest a collapsible list for each artist/type, so there isn't a bunch of repeats of the same artist. Or, this could be a very good place for sortable tables, where the user could expand the table and sort by year, artist, soundtrack, etc. team atalkctrb 01:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I think the collapsed table is the way to go. We have HTMLets, can we add in a [+] button next to the first listed song to expand the list? I'm thinking of the way CategoryTree [+] and [-] work on Wikipedia's category pages (another good extension to have). team atalkctrb 04:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Be sure to check out {{Additional Albums}}. --Åqüã†ìкí ƒΔΣ 07:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

What are we going to do about....Edit

Are we doing things now that only one album is shown at the top, when all others are to go to {{Additional Albums}}? I ask because of the following:

King_Nee1114 (talk pagecontributionsdeletions) 06:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

There was a (rather lengthy) discussion on the Community Portal about this. (Maybe it should have been moved here...) The consensus, I think, was to allow for a second album in the Song template; for more albums, Aqua's new Template is to be used. -- 6x9 (Talk) 06:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Arg. I was hoping all that wouldn't happen... Anyway, I will hold off on bothering with that until you guys work out the details.
King_Nee1114 (talk pagecontributionsdeletions) 06:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

New {{Song}} templateEdit

I understand the purpose of the new edit to SONG, but this only works when the song has only one song template. See America:A Horse With No Name. We need to implement the multiple album Song template somehow. I'm thinking having a parameter "multiple = " where we could hard code the rest of the album links. For example:

{{Song|Album1 (Year)|Artist|multiple = [[Artist:Album2 (Year)|Album2 (Year)]], [[Artist:Album3 (Year)|Album3 (Year)]], and [[Artist:Album4 (Year)|Album4 (Year)]]

which produces:

This song is performed by Artist and appears on the album Artist:Album1 (Year), Album2 (Year), Album3 (Year), and Album4 (Year).

This might be a quick fix. Comments? --WillMak050389 17:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Something more is needed yes. There has already been some discussions about this here >>> Template_talk:Song. I'm still hoping that a change will also be made so that the the star doesn't appear in the middle of the sentence either.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 18:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Red, where is it in the middle of a sentence? PS I changed the horse song because its appearance (both before and after the {{Song}} change) made me want to vomit. --Åqüã†ìкí ƒΔΣ 19:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
On the {{Song}} template. I haven't encountered this problem as yet, but looking at the examples I am expecting that it will present a problem with long artist names/album titles/featured artists. (Horse page looks much better now btw.)  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 19:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
No problem with long song names? Bomb The Music Industry!:"FRRRREEEEE BIIIIIIIRRRRD!!!!!! FRRRRREEEEEEEEE BIIIIIIIRRRRRRRRDDDDD!!!!!!!" or try Pink Floyd:Several Species ;) ∃cho⚡ierr∀ () 19:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I thought of that already, Red. See my edit documentation here: User:Team a/Sandbox/Star On Song Page. As for multiple album integration, I'm totally for it. Keep in mind that there are going to be 2 necessary parameters for each additional album (|Artist2=|Album2=|Artist3=|Album3=), although for releases by the original artist, the first of these new parameters would be unnecessary, and the template could connect the dots. However, we have to think about re-releases of a song on compilations, soundtracks, etc. team atalkctrb 19:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
lol@Echo. Excellent team a! I hadn't seen that page before. I trust you can see why I was concerned about long album titles, artist names and multiple entries of featured artists though, looking at the placement of the star on the {{Song}} page. As for the multiple releases - like I told Will, that discussion has already commenced on the Template_talk:Song page, so if anyone wants to comment further on that subject it's probably best they do it there.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 20:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Just as a note: keep in mind that we do create separate pages for the same song by different artists (covers have separate pages from originals). Therefore, a song page is specific to one artist. You would not need to enter "artist" parameter any more than once.
The "type" parameter, however, would need to be specific for each album, and obviously album needs to be specific each time. Therefore, the amount of parameters grows by N or worst-case 2N (N = number of albums). Whereas, the hard coded parameter that I suggested above only has the parameters grow by 1. Therefore, we can have an infinite number of albums with one more parameter, but we will need at worst 2N more parameters to be able to display N albums if we implement the "|album2 = " etc. --WillMak050389 22:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Multiple StarsEdit

This is what I meant about star >>>Alanis Morissette:Wunderkind  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 00:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

On my screen it looks the way it (presumably) should, with the line wrapping well before the star. Adding a black star by default has an unintended side effect if more than one song template is present, though. -- 6x9 (Talk) 01:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Meaning that, like me, you get 2 stars for the price of 1? Yes this was mentioned I think by Will. This is the problem I was trying to describe earlier >>> Star  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 01:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but you copied the star=Green parameter to both. However, 6x9's post made me realize what is really wrong here with multiple albums, something I never even considered. This will be fixed with adding multiple albums to the song template, but it looks like I need to help contribute to that to fix my error. Sorry! team atalkctrb 01:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Silly me! Yes I did. So I deleted it....and now I've got a nice black one! (hee hee)  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 02:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC) P.S. What about my star problem? (see screenshot above)
What *is* the problem, other than there being two stars? The screenshot looks fine to me. -- 6x9 (Talk) 02:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that the album name isn't The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the StarIconGreen Witch and the Wardrobe. It's The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Or is that not what you see?  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 13:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
It is what I see, but I don't see it as a problem. I actually prefer it to the previous version, where the star took up too much space. -- 6x9 (Talk) 18:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I ain't never gonna talk to you again 6x9!  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 13:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Each page should have only one star, and it's only been bundled with {{Song}} for convenience. Man, I can't believe I didn't think this through - it was put through because I only made very basic changes, and the change in calling the Star template is exactly the same as what works for {{Album}} and {{ArtistHeader}}. There are two options to fix this: make the Song template not set a Black star automatically, or add a |star=None option, and use a bot to add it to every song template on a page except the first one with a bot (a pretty easy regex). Of course, whatever comes of the talk page discussion will also fix it. team atalkctrb 02:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The third choice is to eliminate all instances of 2+ {{Song}}'s... ;-) --Åqüã†ìкí ƒΔΣ 09:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that would certainly seem to be the best solution Aqua. Because if I understand you correctly, what you are saying is wait until the new multiple album template comes into force, since this will replace any instances of 2+ {{Song}}'s... and in the doing resolve the problem...  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 14:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Yup, that's what I'm saying. Alternately, do we want to modify Song to have multiple albums, or do we want to have some new template, perhaps {{Additional Albums}}? --Åqüã†ìкí ƒΔΣ 03:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

{{Additional Albums}}Edit

Personally, I think separate (hideable) template would be best, than a long line of "...and appears on this album, etc.">  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 13:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Me too. Something like "This song also appears on...", below the lyrics. Everything above the lyrics should be kept to the bare necessary minimum. Now waiting to see how long "never" is for Red... ;-) -- 6x9 (Talk) 22:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, I made this mess so let me get my facts straight and I'll help fix it. I am going to make a template {{Additional Albums}} which will make a pop-open row, and takes {{{1}}} as the artist and then album2= thru album99=. album3 and onward will be optional, and there will be an extra parameter (2type, 3 type, 4type...) where we can optionally detail single, compilation or soundtrack. 'Sound 'bout right? --Åqüã†ìкí ƒΔΣ 03:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Artist parameter should be optional as well; in 99% of all cases it will be the same as for the song anyway. -- 6x9 (Talk) 03:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but this is a separate temple from {{Song}}, so artist will have to be respecified. It would be just once for all albums, not for each single album. --Åqüã†ìкí ƒΔΣ 05:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I've created {{Additional Albums}} and tested it out on the ultimate: America:A Horse With No Name. --Åqüã†ìкí ƒΔΣ 18:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I like it, except for the "on on" bit ;-) 6x9 (Talk) 19:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, that was dorky looking.  ;-( --Åqüã†ìкí ƒΔΣ 19:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The additional albums may not always be "albums". They may be "singles" , "soundtracks" or "compilations" (or EP's). By the same token the additional albums may not always have been released by the song's artist. They may various artists, or included on another artist's album. As such these parameters do need to be added to the {{Additional Albums}} template. It would also be good if some wording (like Kiefer suggested on the Song template talk page) was to be added to {{Song}} to indicate that further albums are in fact listed below lyrics.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 21:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute. If the album is by another artist, why would it include this song by this artist? Wouldn't that mean it's a compilation/soundtrack album? --Åqüã†ìкí ƒΔΣ 23:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
There are a few instances where the same song (or at least different mixes thereof) appears on different albums by different (though usually related) artists (like band project/solo album). This would be a lot more convincing if I could think of an example... I don't think that really matters, though, because in those cases, there will be separate song pages anyway (artist1:song and artist2:song). Sorry, Red. Hope you'll still talk to me, or at least that "never" doesn't last too long :-) 6x9 (Talk) 23:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Two albums in {{Song}} anyway?Edit

Is it possible to still allow a second (no more, though) album parameter in {{Song}}? There are rare cases where a song appears on two "regular" albums, like Little Feat:Willin' or Egg:Boilk (both in different versions on the artist's first two albums). It would be sort of "unfair" to relocate the second appearance to the new template, as though it were on a compilation or live album. -- 6x9 (Talk) 22:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes I think this is a good proposal for the reasons you've stated.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 01:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm in favor of this, providing we document on both templates that two albums on {{Song}} is OK, but when you move to three, you've got to take the second album off of Song and put #2 and #3 on {{Additional Albums}}. Sound right? --Åqüã†ìкí ƒΔΣ 05:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Mostly, yes – though I think that should be decided on a case-by-case basis. For the Little Feat song I mentioned I'd prefer to have both regular albums appear in Song and put live albums and compilations in Add. Albums, for the reason I mentioned above. -- 6x9 (Talk) 16:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes I agree with 6 x9, the optional one more album parameter to be added to {{Song}} might sometimes need to remain there even if further albums are listed below the lyrics. I think it might also be good idea to add an optional parameter in {{Song}} for secondary artist (which corresponds to secondary album), in case the song appears on another artist's album.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 21:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Optional 'Type' ParametersEdit

Whilst you're doing the multiple album template thingy Aqua..any possibility of making the compilation parameter behave the same as soundtrack parameter does on Song template (i.e. linking to the album name, not artist)?  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 14:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

That's why I mentioned it: it would behave just like {{Song}}. --Åqüã†ìкí ƒΔΣ 14:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
No I didn't explain that very well. I am talking about the actual Song template. Compilation parameter doesn't work for linking to various artists compilation albums. As such songs from compilation albums are being incorrectly categorised as soundtracks.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 16:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh. I didn't know about this behavior. You mean when type=compilation, that the {{{album}}} would just point to the plain album name, not [[{{{Artist}}}:{{{Album}}}]], right? --Åqüã†ìкí ƒΔΣ 17:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Exactly right. That is why this parameter isn't used.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 01:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I concur. Shall I just change it? --Åqüã†ìкí ƒΔΣ 05:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Please. I don't know how many pages have actually used this parameter but yes I think it should be changed. Maybe this could be done at same time as adding the 1 more album parameter requested by 6x9 to Song template (see above comment).  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 21:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have been away for about a week, and I came back and Song has been changed, and 'multiple albums' has apparently been implemented. Now, I always worry that I behave like an old fogey when it comes to changes to LW. So to combat that sit back, wait a while and most of the time I come around. However, this new method (as I have mentioned before) gives me the screaming willies. Things are horribly complicated now. Multiple albums, albums found in 2 different places above and below the lyrics, by default hidden from view.
I've read a lot about 'case by case' basis, for where the album goes, either in the upper or lower part. That is a horrible way to make things more automated.
I'd also like to pre-emotively smash the argument of 'just because something is, doesn't mean it can't be changed' with 'just because something is, doesn't mean that it isn't the best way to do things'.
I would say that at this point everybody knows what they think of this thing. I'd say the most diplomatic way would be to put this thing to vote. I'd like to see explicit consensus here, and if that happens, I will go away.
King_Nee1114 (talk pagecontributionsdeletions) 09:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, that poor beautifully simple template looks overly complicated now. Perhaps it is the best solution; however, if we ignore all the cases where a song is re-released on some compilation, live-in-concert, best-of, tribute-to album, etc then this option probably will not be useful for many songs. I assume that this change has been well thought about and discussed before somewhere, so I don't want to shoot it off right away. But at the moment I am leaning towards templates like featuring artist(s) ... and appears on compilation albums ..., leaving only a few cases to be handled manually (and even then one extra argument will probably do, rather than 6). So for now, pending further arguments from the editors, against. --Mischko Talkicon EsperanzaIcon (wishing happiness, health and heaps-of-fun for 2009 to all my friends here at LyricWiki!) 13:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
PS can you give me any examples where these options are actually used right now?

I'm not even sure what we're voting on. Or we saying we are for or against changes of any kind to the wiki? Everything works as before, only there are more choices. You don't have to give an album a star if you don't want to. If you define a page multiple times using {{Song}}, then yeah, it looks bad, but are we not in agreement that it is stupid to use {{Song}} more than once on a page?
So far, with Kingnee, Echo and Mischko voting against without any clear definition of what they're voting against, it seems just like knee-jerk conservativism. In every organization, there are phases of growth where the whole thing changes style.
I honestly don't know what are we voting on. To make songs more cluttered on the inside ('edit' mode) so they're less cluttered on the outside (plain appearance)? To try to make things more machine readable, even if it's different than how this site was initially laid out? Are you just mad that I created {{Additional Albums}}? Or that {{Song}} has an automatic star? What are you proposing to do or undo? --Åqüã†ìкí ƒΔΣ 15:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't registered a vote because to be honest like Aqua (who posted whilst I was composing my post), I really don't know what we are voting for/against. I really don't. Although {{Song}} was changed on the 24th [1] I can't actually see in what way. It certainly doesn't look to be anything significant.
With regards to multiple releases it was my understanding that Aqua just put together a test template which he implemented on that awful America:A Horse With No Name page because it was making us all feel a bit ill. The discussions about this are above for anyone to comment on. It certainly hasn't been implemented.
The real problem would seem to me to be that when people don't comment on changes, you can never be sure if they are simply not interested, they are happy with the progress, or they haven't seen the discussion.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 15:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
P.S.@Mischko in answer to your question: Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Additional_Albums
Someone sent me a link to Illuminate:Leuchtfeuer and was confused about the multiple listings of albums, each with its own star. I agree with his point that the page deserves a star not the song/album pairing (so maybe there is a way to make a template other than {{Song}} which is just "additional album" or something so that the page would say "This song by ARTIST appears on ALBUM & ALBUM & ALBUM ... <some-star-here>". But it is interesting that some repeatedly-published songs such as America:A Horse With No Name look much better with the Additional_Albums template below.
I think the specific changes Kingnee is referring to are the new options on Template:Song which add options for fa, type, and albumartist. I don't think those are particularly necessary, and whenever possible I prefer to keep the templates (and all of our custom markup) as simple as possible. On the other hand, they are much more semantic than just putting "feat. [[Someone]]" on the page. When/if we convert to Semantic MediaWiki, having that data structured will be nice. So I have no strong opinion either way.
So to sum up my thoughts: one star per page seems best. While the new options seems a little unnecessary for normal usage, they do make our data much more interesting and would make the conversion to SMW more straightforward - so I don't really have a problem with them.
-Sean Colombo (talk|contribs) 18:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Sean, we are currently in a bastard, half-ass state between two worlds. All these "semantic-ifications" that we are doing are completely inane from a the viewpoint of old-school, regular MediaWiki. And yet, they are unborn, precursors to what we will be with Semantic MediaWiki. I think there are some upset admin who can't see what we will become. Our steps towards Web 3.0 are like pushing a baby into the birth canal without giving birth -- extremely painful and neither here nor there! The tensions are running high and we need to either do it or quit, because the in-between is tearing us apart. Some of us are running the imagined software of the future already and some of us are living in the present (a little self-deprecation there). Please install SMW and let growth continue. --Åqüã†ìкí ƒΔΣ 19:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I will clarify, sorry about the confusion. The thing that I am disputing is not extra type stuff but doing away with multiple song templates at the top. I want each album with it's own song template, at the top, just like we have done it before. However, I will make a concession, and say that unless you cannot see the start of the lyrics because there are too many albums listed (Ex, America:A Horse With No Name).
King_Nee1114 (talk pagecontributionsdeletions) 20:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
EDIT: You say this is a test phase, and very well it is. However changing the song template to force a black star for each one forces the 'plan' that we are moving from having multiple song templates, to only one for any artist page.
(artist or song page? I'm confused again..easy done I know). Anyway thanks KingNee for clarifying that. So just so we are all 100% clear on this, a vote "Against" means a vote against finding an alternative solution to multiple song templates at the top? And a vote "For" means would prefer an alternative solution? And if it's not a silly question, can I ask why you don't think an alternative solution is a good idea? Don't you think it is unnecessary to keep repeating all that wording, that it also looks a bit messy? I'm just trying to understand this is all. If I understood what the problem was...  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 20:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Correct. And, no, it's not a silly question. I will give the the short version: With one song template per album infinite lists could be supported, for one. All of the information was unhidden, for another. I like the way that our long-held method worked, I don't think it was messy at all. The phrase 'case-by-case basis' also worries me. That template is way to pervasive to be so complicated. Things should be simple.
King_Nee1114 (talk pagecontributionsdeletions) 21:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you KingNee.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 21:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, things are a bit clearer now. Turns out we're not voting about the current implementation of Song, but about finding alternatives to multiple {{Song}}s. That, of course, I support... even having the same text twice ("This song is performed by ... and appears on .... This song is performed by ... and appears on ...") is very ugly and we should find an alternative. Now I better understand the motives and I must of course agree that the song with the screen-long listing (which is gone, now; it doesn't show any albums at all except the first one -- is that in error?) should be changed. I am still not convinced though, that adding a bunch of album and featuring parameters to the Song template is the solution, so on that matter I am still slightly opposed (slightly, because I don't want to completely burn down something I don't have an alternative to :)). As an aside, I prefer not to be called a "knee-jerk conservatist" (is that even a word? :)) because I am not against any change and I clearly indicated that my vote was with reserve. Hope that clears up things a bit --Mischko Talkicon EsperanzaIcon (wishing happiness, health and heaps-of-fun for 2009 to all my friends here at LyricWiki!) 09:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
PS I doubt that this new statement will raise much opposition; still I hope that KingNee didn't mean that part about going away...
PPS In fact I was not entirely honest, I did propose (a sketchy beginning to) an alternative in my earlier post.
No the horsey page isn't an error Mischko. As I said up there ^^, it was making a lot of us feel a bit ill as it was. If you look underneath the lyrics you will find that all the albums are in fact still listed. It is simply the test page for the scrollable template idea.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 11:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
The Horse of many albums looks much healthier than it did before, So King what is the disadvantage in moving away from multiple Song headers as was before? Kiefer's idea sounds pretty good. Can someone please explain how SMW will improve this situation, may be that's something to vote on first? Sorry about my knee jerk reaction earlier, I was just mad at Toyah.. ∃cho⚡ierr∀ () 12:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC) crashed my week long bot run
Ah, I see it now. It is a little hidden now (lol, first is too visible, now it is too invisible -- am I ever happy?). The idea is nice, but I suggest either having the list expanded anyway, or putting the collapsed list right below {{Song}}. In basis, it's a nice idea though! --Mischko Talkicon EsperanzaIcon (wishing happiness, health and heaps-of-fun for 2009 to all my friends here at LyricWiki!) 16:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I added grey - is that better? --Åqüã†ìкí ƒΔΣ 16:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't like the idea of such a template being down the bottom either Mischko, because just like you didn't see it first time around, I think other users would miss it too. It is for reasons such as this of course that discussions need to continue.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 17:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
/me Raises White Flag. I concede. I really wanted to make sure that everyone was on the same page, and that there really was consensus. I'll continue to keep an eye on this whole thing (I'd have to, it's a pervasive change :P), but I'll be relatively hands off. I wasn't planning on boycotting LW BTW, I'll still be here, with that I meant "stop impeding progress on this subject". There are plenty of other projects for me to still impede progress :D Also, thank you to SandBot, for the company...
King_Nee1114 (talk pagecontributionsdeletions) 17:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
X << from SandBot (you are her hero)
Let me be sure to not come across as change-for-change's-sake. I want whatever is clear, concise and simple. I am well aware that much of what some of us are doing appears obtuse and convoluted, but I have clear vision and goal in the future that lights all my steps in the meantime: Semantic MediaWiki. I don't want to make a mess, nor make anyone mad in the meantime, however! Things are always darkest before the dawn and always hurt the most just before they are over. --Åqüã†ìкí ƒΔΣ 18:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Semantic! Okay, here's what I think on the current situation, as I've been very busy with the Album Restructuring: I think the list of other appearances should be right below {{Song}}, never at the bottom of the page. I think it'll blend in better at the top with a 1px nearly black border instead of gray background. I think it should only be as wide as {{Song}} is now (putting a margin on the right equal to the actual width that star takes up.) I also think that it's a good idea and a good solution to this problem. team atalkctrb 18:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
EDIT: I also wanted to point out that templates can be used as parameter values, so you can create a template called {{Song2}} that's exactly the same as song but with no star, and use {{Additional Albums}} as a container object with only one parameter, avoiding all the work of renaming all the existing {{Song}}s on a page except changing one letter:
{{Song|America (1972)|America|star=Bronze}}
{{Additional Albums|
{{Song2|Greatest Hits: Best of America (Taiwanese Import) (1975)|America}}<br/>
{{Song2|History: America's Greatest Hits (1975)|America}}<br/>
{{Song2|America Live (1977)|America}}<br/>
{{Song2|America's Gold (1981)|America}}<br/>
{{Song2|Live In Central Park (1981)|America}}<br/>
{{Song2|You Can Do Magic (1998)|America}}<br/>
{{Song2|America In Concert (1985)|America}}
team atalkctrb 18:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

For continuing to seek an alternative to multiple song templatesEdit

  • Redxx
  • Aquatiki
  • Kiefer (See here for what I had envisioned, which is somewhere between the two.)
  • Mischko
  • EchoSierra
  • - teknomunk (talk,E,,A)


  • Kingnee1114lyrics
  • SandBot

Request: Songs with/without iTunesEdit

Next time Song template is updated, can we we have code added to categorize songs with/without iTunes? We have it for albums, why not songs... ∃cho⚡ierr∀ () 23:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that should be in {{SongFooter}} team atalkctrb 08:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Duh, ty

(Pagesize = 68,459)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki